Karnataka High Court

The Executive Engineer ... vs Lakshmaiah on 14 January, 2022

Bench: Jyoti Mulimani

                          1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                        BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

     WRIT PETITION NO. 41776/2016 (GM-KEB)

BETWEEN:

1.     THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
       K.P.T.C.L.,
       MAJOR WORKS DEPARTMENT,
       OFFICE AT OLD ZILLA PANCHAYATH
       OFFICE BUILDING, KOTHI THOPU ROAD,
       TUMKUR - 572 102.

2.     ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL),
       NO.2, MAJOR WORKS DEPARTMENT,
       K.P.T.C.L.,
       OFFICE AT OLD ZILLA PANCHAYATH OFFICE,
       KOTHI THOPU ROAD,
       TUMKUR - 572 102.             ...PETITIONERS

(BY SMT.SHUBHA S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     LAKSHMAIAH
       S/O LATE SRIRANGAIAH
       AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

2.     VARALAKSHMI
       W/O LAKSHMAIAH

       BOTH RESIDING AT
       SINGONAHALLI VILLAGE,
                               2




      KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK
      TUMKUR - 572216.                      ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI D.T.CHETHAN, ADVOCATE)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING
CERTAIN RELIEFS.


      THIS   WRIT    PETITION      COMING     ON   FOR   FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

Smt.S.Shubha, learned counsel on behalf of

petitioners has appeared through video conferencing.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their ranking in the trial Court.

3. The claimants filed a petition in Miscellaneous

Case No.19/2014 before the I Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, and sought for enhanced

compensation.

It is stated that the claimants are the owners of the

land bearing Survey No.74/6 of Mudigere Village, Kasaba

Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, Tumakuru District. The KPTCL-

respondents have drawn High Tension Electric Line over

the claimants' land. They have cut and removed 14 Mango

trees and one Baniyan tree and one Jackfruit tree.

It is stated that the compensation awarded is very

meager and the Authority has not adopted capitalization

method and adopted an unscientific method and the

compensation paid is not in accordance with the market

rate of the relevant year and that they have adopted the

rates prevalent as on 2007-2008.

It is also stated that since there is a drawing up of

high-tension wire over their land there is diminution of

value of the land and hence, they prayed for enhancement

of compensation with interest at 12% per annum.

After the issuance of the notice, the KPTCL filed

statement of objections. They admitted that they have

drawn 110/11 K.V. Electric Transmission Line through the

claimant's land and that notice was issued to remove 14

Mango trees, aged about 12 years, 01 Baniyan tree, aged

about 10 years and 01 Jackfruit tree, aged about 1 year.

The compensation awarded by the Authority is based on

the report of the Senior Assistant Director of Horticulture.

Hence, the compensation paid is just and proper

accordingly, they prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

The claimant No.1 Lakshmaiah examined as PW-1

and produced 10 documents which were marked as

Exs.P-1 to P-10. One Sri.N.K.Shivanagendra was

examined as RW-1 and he produced one document and the

same was marked as Ex R-1.

On the trial of the action, the trial Court awarded

compensation of Rs.6,41,000.00 (Rupees Six Lakhs Forty

One Thousand only) less the compensation already paid by

the Authority with cost and with interest of 8% per annum

from the date of petition till realization.

It is this order which is challenged in this writ

petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of

India on various grounds as set out in the Memorandum of

writ petition.

4. Smt.Shubha.S, learned counsel submits that

learned Judge erred in not appreciating the fact that the

KPTCL have paid the compensation based on the report of

the Senior Assistant Director of Horticulture Department.

He has assessed the compensation to be paid on the

formula and guidance issued by the Government of

Karnataka from time to time. The compensation paid was

just and proper. Hence, interfering with the same by

further enhancing the compensation has resulted in

causing great prejudice to the interest and right of the

Authority.

Next, she submitted that the trial Court committed a

grave error in arriving at a conclusion that a Mango tree

aged about 12 years will yield 150 k.g. per year which is

highly exorbitant.

A further submission was made that normally, 5

mangoes of normal size may weigh 01 kg and the price

would be Rs.30 per kg especially when no materials are

placed before the Court with regard to the type of mango

that is grown.

Counsel vehemently urged that learned Judge has

deducted only Rs.100/- annually towards cost of

cultivation of 14 Mango trees which is very negligible and

cannot be accepted. Further, no amount is deducted

towards cost of cultivation in respect of Baniyan tree and

Jackfruit tree.

It is further submitted that the Apex Court and this

Court in various judgments held that the cost of cultivation

in respect of fruit bearing trees should be calculated at

30%. Hence, the same needs interference.

Lastly, she submitted that learned Judge erred in not

taking into consideration of the vital and key facts that the

Authority has already paid and the claimants have received

compensation amount without any protest nor have they

filed any objections before the Horticulture Department

regarding assessment of valuation of the trees. Hence, a

grave error has committed by enhancing the compensation

and the award of 8% interest is totally unsustainable in

law. Accordingly, she submitted that award of

compensation requires modification and therefore,

submitted that the writ petition may be allowed.

5. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of the

petitioners and perused the Annexures with care.

6. The short question which arises for

consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the

trial Court requires modification?

The facts are not in dispute. While addressing

argument, learned counsel for petitioners strenuously

urged that the total value of the amount in respect of

Mango and Jackfruit trees requires re-consideration by this

Court for the simple reason that learned Judge has

deducted Rs.100/- (Rupees Hundred Only) towards cost of

cultivation instead of 30% per tree.

Counsel also has drawn the attention of the Court to

the decision reported in THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

KPTCL, CHITRADURGA AND ANOTHER V. DODDAKKA

- ILR 2015 KAR 677.

I have carefully perused the order passed by the

Trial Court and it could be seen from the order, learned

Judge has deducted Rs.100/- towards cost of cultivation.

But as per Doddakka's case, the cost of cultivation should

be deducted at 30%. Hence in my opinion, the award of

compensation requires modification.

If we deduct 30% of cost of cultivation in so far as

Mango and Jackfruit trees are concerned, the total value

for 14 Mango trees will be Rs.4,41,000/- (Rupees Four

Lakhs Forty One Thousand only) and that of Jackfruit tree

will be Rs.14,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand only).

CALCULATION OF MANGO TREES:



  SL.NO.    NO. OF TREES            YIELD        PRICE (Rs.)

      1.           14                150               30/-



  •   150X30X10= 45,000/-

• 30% Cost of Cultivation = 45,000X30/100= 13,500/-

• 45,000-13,500= Rs.31,500/- per tree

• 31,500X14= Rs.4,41,000/- (for fourteen Mango

trees).

CALCULATION OF JACKFRUIT TREES:



  SL.NO.    NO. OF TREES            YIELD        PRICE (Rs.)

      1.           01                250           Rs.8/- PER

                                                       K.G.

  •   250X8X10= 20,000/-

• 30% Cost of Cultivation = 20,000X30/100= 6,000/-

• 20,000-6,000= Rs.14,000/- (for one Jackfruit tree)

The amount in respect of Baniyan tree is unaltered.

Hence, the re-assessed compensation is as under:-

1. Mango Tree                 -       4,41,000/-
2. Jackfruit Tree             -           14,000/-
3. Baniyan Tree               -            5,000/-
                                   --------------
Total compensation            -      4,60,000/-
                                   ---------------

Taking into consideration the above calculation, the

claimants are entitled for total compensation of

Rs.4,60,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Sixty Thousand only).

The Authority has already paid a sum of

Rs.1,64,795/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Four Thousand

Seven Hundred and Ninety Five only) while drawing the

line.

Submission is noted.

If we deduct a sum of Rs.1,64,795/-, the balance

amount will be Rs.2,95,205/-. The claimants will be

entitled for balance compensation of Rs.2,95,205/-

(Rupees Two Lakh Ninety Five Thousand Two Hundred and